Re: [RIF] New diagram with Goals, CSFs, and Requirements and first-order logic

Leora:
  Your link is a bit stale. We have reorganized everything under the  
UCR document tree. However, we have not substantially changed the way  
FOL is 'handled'.
  Incidentally, in my opinion, requirements are about problems, and  
FOL is a solution not a problem :)
  Even more incidentally, this correspondent does not buy the phase I/ 
II/extended road map. But, I guess I am in the minority on that one.
Frank


On Jun 1, 2006, at 1:18 PM, Leora Morgenstern wrote:

>
> Hi Paula,
>
> I've noticed that the Goal, Critical Success Factors, and  
> Requirements document at http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Goals% 
> 2C_Critical_Success_Factors_and_Requirements has been modified  
> since Tuesday to explicitly mention first-order logic. (There may  
> have some explicit email to this effect which I have not seen.)
>
> I'm glad to see that there is now an explicit reference to the  
> requirement that the Extended RIF support first-order logic.
>
> I believe that it would be even better to have a requirement that  
> the Core RIF support first-order logic. I believe that though this  
> might seem to be more difficult and more work-intensive in the  
> short term, it would actually be more efficient it would clarify  
> many of the existing sources of vagueness in the requirements  
> document, such as the section on "No surprises" and soundness. In  
> addition, it would lead to more widespread adoption, since  
> presumably there will be more implementations of core RIF than of  
> Extended RIF.
>
> Nevertheless, I'm willing to live with the compromise that Extended  
> RIF will support FOL even if Core RIF doesn't.  If all the other  
> supporters of the requirement that RIF support FOL  --- I would  
> guess that Sandro, Chris Welty, and cmsa, among others, are in this  
> camp --- then I will not further argue for the inclusion of this  
> requirement in Core RIF. (If they do not agree, and would still  
> like to argue for Core RIF supporting FOL, then I am still up for a  
> good argument on this subject.)
>
> Best regards,
> Leora Morgenstern
>
>
>
>
>
> Paula-Lavinia Patranjan <paula.patranjan@ifi.lmu.de>
> Sent by: public-rif-wg-request@w3.org
> 05/30/2006 11:09 AM
>
> To
> Leora Morgenstern/Watson/IBM@IBMUS
> cc
> public-rif-wg@w3.org, Frank McCabe <frank.mccabe@us.fujitsu.com>
> Subject
> Re: [RIF] New diagram with Goals, CSFs, and Requirements: Whatever   
> happened to first-order logic as a requirement?
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi Leora,
>
> The requirement regarding FOL is under the open issues in the text at
> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Goals% 
> 2C_Critical_Success_Factors_and_Requirements
>
> I agree that the current statement on FOL is not really clear, sorry
> about that, but I just copied and pasted this statement from Frank's
> first version on Design Constraints. I'll reformulate this in a  
> second.
>
> As I said in the email, the text below the diagram is under  
> development
> that is why one might get confused at this point. I will address the
> rest of your comments together with Frank when refining the text on
> RIF's DCs.
>
> Thank you for your comments!
>
> Regards,
> Paula
> > This comment refers both to your diagram as well as to the text
> > following the diagram in the url which you reference below.
> >
> > Whatever happened to first-order logic as a requirement? This was a
> > requirement that Sandro had originally proposed, and which I
> > championed. Instead, what I see is something considerably weaker: a
> > notion of "no surprises" which is said to be equivalent to some kind
> > of soundness, and a statement saying that "The RIF must support a
> > substantial portion of First-Order Logic."
> >
> >
> > Not only is this weaker, it doesn't seem very clear. What  
> precisely is
> > this soundness to which you refer? How do you define soundness  
> without
> > the notions inherent in first-order logic, namely truth within a  
> model
> > and derivability?
> >
> > What precisely is a "substantial portion" of first-order logic?  
> As it
> > stands, the phrase isn't well-defined. Could one have first-order
> > logic with everything but modus ponens? One could argue that that  
> is a
> > "substantial portion" of first-order logic, but obviously that
> > wouldn't make sense. What do you plan to leave out of first-order
> > logic? And why?
> >
> > Can we put this back on the table, and get first-order logic into  
> the
> > requirements?
> >
> > I hope we can discuss this at our meeting today.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Leora Morgenstern
> >
> >
> > *Paula-Lavinia Patranjan <paula.patranjan@ifi.lmu.de>*
> > Sent by: public-rif-wg-request@w3.org
> >
> > 05/26/2006 07:47 AM
> >
> >
> > To
> >                  public-rif-wg@w3.org
> > cc
> >                  Frank McCabe <frank.mccabe@us.fujitsu.com>
> > Subject
> >                  [RIF] New diagram with Goals, CSFs, and  
> Requirements
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Frank and I have merged the requirements proposed in
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006May/0234.html
> > and the goals, CSFs, and requirements of the diagram proposed by  
> Frank in
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006May/0188.html
> >
> > The updated version of the DC diagram can be found under
> > http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Goals% 
> 2C_Critical_Success_Factors_and_Requirements
> >
> > Note that the text on goals, CSFs, and requirements for RIF on  
> the above
> > given page doesn't correspond yet to the current version of the DC
> > diagram; we are working on updating the text on the wiki page too.
> >
> > Please send comments on the current version of the DC diagram so  
> as to
> > be able to finalize the work on RIF's design constraints as soon as
> > possible.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Paula
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> <paula.patranjan.vcf>

Received on Thursday, 1 June 2006 20:42:06 UTC